Another Try At Examining Alleged Evidence For The Darwinian Process

[justlookinla]

The content of the links have been addressed. You're backed into a corner justlookin and you know it.
Address the evidence one by one. No more stalling on your part.

That's a baseless claim just like your other baseless claims.

Where? When? Post number?

 

[justlookinla]

A. Comparative anatomy conclusion- "Organisms that are closely related to one another share many anatomical similarities"http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IIBcomparative.shtml

B. Embryology conclusion- "Rathke looked at the development of frogs, salamanders, fish, birds, and mammals, and emphasized the similarities in the development of all these vertebrate groups. During his 40 years of embryological research, he described for the first time the vertebrate pharyngeal arches , which become the gill apparatus of fish but become the mammalian jaws and ears" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9974/

C. Evolutionary genetics- Four evolutionary forces (mutation, random genetic drift, natural selection, and gene flow) acting within and among populations cause micro-evolutionary change and these processes are sufficient to account for macro-evolutionary patterns, which arise in the longer term from the collective action of these forces. That is, given very long periods of time, the micro-evolutionary forces will eventually give rise to the macro-evolutionary patterns that characterize the higher taxonomic groups. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolutionary-genetics/

D. DNA- "A mutation is a change in DNA, the hereditary material of life. An organism's DNA affects how it looks, how it behaves, and its physiology. So a change in an organism's DNA can cause changes in all aspects of its life."http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolutionary-genetics/
An example of the results of a genetic mutation would be the bipedal hips in Australopithecus

We can also see evidence of similarities between chimpanzees and humans in human chromosome #2
"All great apes apart from man have 24 pairs of chromosomes. There is therefore a hypothesis that the common ancestor of all great apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes and that the fusion of two of the ancestor's chromosomes created chromosome 2 in humans. The evidence for this hypothesis is very strong."
The analogous chromosomes (2p and 2q) in the non-human great apes can be shown, when laid end to end, to create an identical banding structure to the human chromosome 2 http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

E. The fossil record. If what we know from above is true, we will see transitional fossils in the fossil record. A prediction was made for the Tiktaalik fossil. The prediction was confirmed accurate. http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html
There is also a massive transitional fossil record: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Hopefully we can establish or dismiss the alleged evidence before another thread is shut down. I ask that everyone simply address the issues and the claims.

Now, this was offered as an example of evidence for the HOW, the process whereby both pine trees and humans were produced from an alleged single life form (unknown at this time) of long ago.

This is the post containing the alleged evidence for the HOW, the process, based on the scientific method....

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/how-much-longer.7910094/page-26#post-68695191

----------------------------------------------

This was my response to the post claiming the alleged evidence....

I'm going to take it step by step to make sure we adequately cover everything. Starting with your 3 points...

"1. Make an observation- It appears that the diversity of life is related.

2. Ask a question (s)- Is all life on earth related? If so, HOW did this happen?

3. Make a hypothesis- All living things on earth are related. This is a process of evolution by random mutations and natural selection."
You've begun at the outset to once again make this about common ancestry. "Related" and "all living things on earth are related" isn't the issue, as I've pointed out probably hundreds of times now.

Now, your next claim in #3...."This is a process of evolution by random mutations and natural selection." This is the issue. You made a claim that the process which created all life we observe today, pine trees and humans, snails and elephants are the result of "random mutations and natural selection".

Now, taking your first point and lets see if it offers the evidence, based on the scientific method, for your claim.

"A. Comparative anatomy conclusion- "Organisms that are closely related to one another share many anatomical similarities"http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IIBcomparative.shtml"
Point out in your statement where the evidence is offered, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process (mutation and natural selection?) which produced all life we observe today from an alleged single life form of long ago.

And again...and again...and again...I'm not asking about common ancestry, about relatedness, I'm asking about the HOW, the process itself. When you identify the process, based on evidence, based on the scientific method in A, we'll examine B.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

And again...and again...and again...I'm not asking about common ancestry, about relatedness, I'm asking about the HOW, the process itself. When you identify the process, based on evidence, based on the scientific method in A, we'll examine B.

Common ancestry, about relatedness is evidence for the how (genetic mutation and natural selection).
If genetic mutation and natural selection over generations is true, then we will see common ancestry. I've presented the evidence that confirms this. You don't know what you're talking about nor will you address it. You have lost the debate until you do so.

I won't be replying until you address everything.
Have a great day.

 

[DerelictJunction]

The question concerning the claims of mutation+natural selection+ time = pine trees and humans is certainly a question which science should be able to answer.

That's certainly the claim of the Darwinist view of evolution.

A process has been claimed, without the support of the scientific method.

It's taken hundreds of posts for you to point this out? Of course the scientific method cannot be applied, that's the point. The guesses and suppositions of the HOW/the process of Darwinism isn't based on the scientific method.

No, I'm not going to describe the process in detail. I'm not the one making the claim that (generally speaking) mutation+natural selection+time = pine trees and humans. The burden is on those who embrace that view to offer the evidence, based on the scientific method, which will support the view.

If you agree with the premise that (generally speaking) mutation+natural selection+time = pine trees and humans then you describe it in detail....it's your belief system. And support it with the scientific method. If you disagree, simply say so.

I get the distinct feeling that you didn't understand my post at all.
This is the question you asked:

Is there evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process, whereby pine trees and humans were produced from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago.​

Technically, I could answer, "yes" and be done with it because there is evidence based on the scientific method. I'm relatively sure that is not what you're after.

It's your bloody question, mate. What in the blue blazes do you want to know?

If you want me to explain the HOW, then tell me why you wouldn't respond to the presentation of observations that I provided to you. I was getting to the HOW by setting up the link from the observations to the hypothesis and then the confirming experimentation. You know, using the scientific method.

However, YOU didn't want to go that direction.

So....What on God's Green Earth are you after. Explain.It.To.Me.

 

[justlookinla]

Common ancestry, about relatedness is evidence for the how (genetic mutation and natural selection).

No, it's not about relatedness. What's the process? You're claiming the process is genetic mutation and natural selection. Actually give a reference which takes genetic mutation and natural selection and produces evidence, based on the scientific method, that genetic mutation and natural selection actually produced pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form (unknown) from long ago. You claim the links you posted contained the evidence, but you're not wanting to actually face your claims and post references and content from just one of the links which describes the experiment which confirms the claim. You're silent when asked about the content of your links. You made the claim, back it up.

If genetic mutation and natural selection over generations is true, then we will see common ancestry.

This isn't about common ancestry.

I've presented the evidence that confirms this.

Where? When? Post number? You won't face your claims from the very links you gave.

You don't know what you're talking about nor will you address it. You have lost the debate until you do so.

Conversation over.

Maybe with you.

 

[justlookinla]

I get the distinct feeling that you didn't understand my post at all.
This is the question you asked:

Is there evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process, whereby pine trees and humans were produced from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago.​

Technically, I could answer, "yes" and be done with it because there is evidence based on the scientific method. I'm relatively sure that is not what you're after.

That's precisely what I'm after. I've asked for the same information probably over 200 times now.

It's your bloody question, mate. What in the blue blazes do you want to know?

I want evidence, based on the scientific method for the alleged process.

If you want me to explain the HOW, then tell me why you wouldn't respond to the presentation of observations that I provided to you.

None of the observations were performed on the how, the process. The only observations we have are for micro-evolution.

I was getting to the HOW by setting up the link from the observations to the hypothesis and then the confirming experimentation. You know, using the scientific method.

Do it. Let's see what you got as far as evidence, based on the scientific method.

However, YOU didn't want to go that direction.

So....What on God's Green Earth are you after. Explain.It.To.Me.

I'm not going in any direction but the one about evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's precisely what I'm after. I've asked for the same information probably over 200 times now.



I want evidence, based on the scientific method for the alleged process.



None of the observations were performed on the how, the process. The only observations we have are for micro-evolution.



Do it. Let's see what you got as far as evidence, based on the scientific method.



I'm not going in any direction but the one about evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process.

But justlookin, you don't understand what evidence is. You failed the class so far on scientific evidence. Let's begin again with the simple concept of empirical evidence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

"Empirical evidence, data, or knowledge, also known as sense experience, is a collective term for the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation."

Now as you can see by this definition a fossil found in a particular stratum is by definition "empirical evidence". We can both observe the fossil itself and we can observe various facts about the strata that it is found in.

 

[justlookinla]

But justlookin, you don't understand what evidence is. You failed the class so far on scientific evidence. Let's begin again with the simple concept of empirical evidence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

"Empirical evidence, data, or knowledge, also known as sense experience, is a collective term for the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation."

Now as you can see by this definition a fossil found in a particular stratum is by definition "empirical evidence". We can both observe the fossil itself and we can observe various facts about the strata that it is found in.

Follow this and you'll be ok.....

 

[DerelictJunction]

That's precisely what I'm after. I've asked for the same information probably over 200 times now.

I want evidence, based on the scientific method for the alleged process.

None of the observations were performed on the how, the process. The only observations we have are for micro-evolution.

Do it. Let's see what you got as far as evidence, based on the scientific method.

I'm not going in any direction but the one about evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process.

So...going back to the first attempt.
Do you have any problems with the current observations reiterated below?

Observation 1: Some individuals within a population survive and produce offspring better than other individuals in that same population.
Observation 2: Capabilities of individuals (speed, camouflage, resistance to disease, beak size and strength..etc) differ between individuals in a population.
Observation 3: The differences in capabilities in individuals in a population cause differences in survival ability and offspring production.
Observation 4: Offspring of individuals are more likely to have capabilities on the level of their parents rather than capabilities on the level of other individuals within the same population.

 

[justlookinla]

So...going back to the first attempt.
Do you have any problems with the current observations reiterated below?

Observation 1: Some individuals within a population survive and produce offspring better than other individuals in that same population.
Observation 2: Capabilities of individuals (speed, camouflage, resistance to disease, beak size and strength..etc) differ between individuals in a population.
Observation 3: The differences in capabilities in individuals in a population cause differences in survival ability and offspring production.
Observation 4: Offspring of individuals are more likely to have capabilities on the level of their parents rather than capabilities on the level of other individuals within the same population.

As long as they're supported by the scientific method, no problems.

 

[DerelictJunction]

As long as they're supported by the scientific method, no problems.

They are observations. Stop with the qualifiers. Do You or Do You Not agree that these are valid observations? If you do not agree, explain why you disagree.

 

[justlookinla]

They are observations. Stop with the qualifiers. Do You or Do You Not agree that these are valid observations? If you do not agree, explain why you disagree.

No, I'm not going to stop with the qualifiers. The scientific method is based on qualifiers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Follow this and you'll be ok.....

Scientists do that. You don't. You don't even understand this simple little graphic and that is why I am trying to help you to understand the simple concept of evidence. I tell you what, once you show that you can understand evidence then we can discuss your chart.

 

[justlookinla]

Scientists do that. You don't. You don't even understand this simple little graphic and that is why I am trying to help you to understand the simple concept of evidence. I tell you what, once you show that you can understand evidence then we can discuss your chart.

No, the chart stays. It's the basis for the process.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, the chart stays. It's the basis for the process.

What good is it when you don't understand it? You can't understand that chart if you do not understand what is and what is not evidence and how it is used.

 

[justlookinla]

What good is it when you don't understand it? You can't understand that chart if you do not understand what is and what is not evidence and how it is used.

Offer your guess, we'll subject it to the graphic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Offer your guess, we'll subject it to the graphic.

Justlookin, I am not offering any "guesses" right now. I am merely trying to help you to understand your graphic. If you don't understand what is and what is not evidence you can't understand your chart.

 

[justlookinla]

Justlookin, I am not offering any "guesses" right now. I am merely trying to help you to understand your graphic. If you don't understand what is and what is not evidence you can't understand your chart.

Why not offer your guesses and we'll see if we understand the graphic by subjecting those guesses to the scientific process to see if the scientific process verifies your guess or not.

Won't take long, I'm sure.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why not offer your guesses and we'll see if we understand the graphic by subjecting those guesses to the scientific process to see if the scientific process verifies your guess or not.

Won't take long, I'm sure.

Again, I don't guess. Scientists rarely guess. You could say that the first step is a guess, but after that it is tested, as is shown in your chart that you do not understand. At that point we are no longer working with mere guesses.

Don't worry, you can understand your chart too if you work hard enough.

 

[justlookinla]

Again, I don't guess. Scientists rarely guess. You could say that the first step is a guess, but after that it is tested, as is shown in your chart that you do not understand. At that point we are no longer working with mere guesses.

Don't worry, you can understand your chart too if you work hard enough.

It's a guess until it's verified by the scientific method. Offer what you have, let's find out if it passes the test or not.